Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers

[Dragon]

Glad I got rid of the EF 50mm 1.4!
The RF 50mm 1.8 is a decent lens - and yes, I still hold my FD 50mm 1.4 ;-)

I have both an FL 58 f/1.2 and an FL 55 f/1.2. The 55 is actually a quite good lens. The 58 is softer wide open, but lots of dreamy fun for portrait work and it's radioactive too, so you can use it to scare folks at Halloween. And, yes, the RF 50 f/1.8 is a quite decent lens., particularly for the money.

 

[BrightTiger]

> Still, good news, except for the people who already sold every bit of Canon gear...
No, we left for Sony. There's over 200 lenses and counting. We're good, thanks. ; )
As for my wife, she's not so happy with Mr. Tokura.

 

[P-visie]

There is an interview with Sigma’s ceo Kazuto Yamaki on a French site Phototrend (link) where he states (Google translated from French):

I'm coming back to more recurring topics. Thus, some sources believed that Sigma would launch one or more RF mount lenses at CP+. Can you tell us more?​

Unfortunately, I cannot give you any further information on this subject. As I told you last year, we are aware of customer demand in this regard. In fact, this demand is growing stronger and stronger. At Sigma, we all believe that we must respond to this request, but for the moment we do not have an answer to provide.

 

[Walrus]

The deep talks:

Sigma: 50mm f/1.4 Art?

Canon: No.

Tamron: 35-150mm f/2-2.8?

Canon: No.

Sigma: 500mm f/5.6?

Canon: No.

Tamron: ...then what?

Canon: ...you can make a 45mm...

Sigma: What? Who even shoots 45mm—

Canon: ...and it has to be a triplet lens

Tamron: WTF

Fun; and also, sadly, probably true

 

[hne]

The deep talks:

...

Tamron: 35-150mm f/2-2.8?

Canon: No.

...

Tamron: WTF

I WANT THAYUT!

 

[John Wilde]

I wish we could get a straightforward answer.

I think business executives go to special classes on how to talk without saying anything substantive.

 

[Dragon]

I think business executives go to special classes on how to talk without saying anything substantive.

Better than politicians who make you think they are saying exactly the opposite of what they are really saying.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think business executives go to special classes on how to talk without saying anything substantive.

I was at a large company after they were hit with a major lawsuit, and we had hours of 'communications training' not so much about what to say but how to say it. Go see them. Call. If the other person doesn't answer, consider whether or not to leave a voicemail. Email as a last resort. Basically, communicate in the inverse order of the duration over which something is discoverable. Lol.

 

[EricN]

I was at a large company after they were hit with a major lawsuit, and we had hours of 'communications training' not so much about what to say but how to say it. Go see them. Call. If the other person doesn't answer, consider whether or not to leave a voicemail. Email as a last resort. Basically, communicate in the inverse order of the duration over which something is discoverable. Lol.

Did they explain their reason? I can only think it's the order in which the other person would feel important, but there could be something else?

 

[Del Paso]

I was at a large company after they were hit with a major lawsuit, and we had hours of 'communications training' not so much about what to say but how to say it. Go see them. Call. If the other person doesn't answer, consider whether or not to leave a voicemail. Email as a last resort. Basically, communicate in the inverse order of the duration over which something is discoverable. Lol.

And I was told to answer systematically with a "please contact our press/law department", they are in charge of answering such questions. Wrong answers can become very expensive...

 

[Quack]

Is it really so difficult to understand? Canon won't let other lens makers infringe on their AF patents. Understandable. So, 3rd parties will have to negotiate agreements to make AF lenses. Understandable (and what Nikon is doing also with their Z mount). Negotiations are underway and ongoing, but the outcome is not yet known, so no one can give any sort of definitive answer. We just have to wait and see.

 

[P-visie]

The French Phototrend site has an interview with Canon:

“The range of full-frame lenses is already well stocked: do you plan to develop (at the same pace) the RF-S range for APS-C hybrids?
Tetsushi Hibi: Regarding APS-C lenses, last year we developed a wide-angle zoom [the RF-S 10-18 mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM , Editor's note], and we're really working on strengthening our APS-C line.
But again, it all depends on what the customers want, what they ask for. And we will have to take into account what comes first in this planning.“

And

”With the RF mount open, can you tell us how Canon validates the development of a third-party lens for the mount? Do manufacturers only have to comply with technical specifications, or is it more strategic?
Go Tokura: I want to clarify that as we speak, there are no third-party RF lenses with autofocus available. As you know, we have not adopted an open strategy.
That said, although we have more than 40 lenses available in our catalog, we need diversity in our offering to satisfy customer needs. This means that we are currently communicating a lot more than last year with third-party manufacturers.
All I can say for now is that we have a confidentiality agreement with other manufacturers regarding the type of lenses to be released or their positioning in the market. But I can't say anything more.“

Link to google translated interview.

 

[Walrus]

"it all depends on what the customers want, what they ask for"

I don't believe him even for a second :-D I would say the real deal is "it all depends on what we think customers should want, and how good we can convince (or manipulate...) them into thinking that what we are offering them is exactly what they want and need and that they should need, nor desire, no more then that"
(and that goes of course not just for Canon, but for ANY company in ANY business setting; it's just how anybody behaves)

 

[koenkooi]

I don't believe him even for a second :-D I would say the real deal is "it all depends on what we think customers should want, and how good we can convince (or manipulate...) them into thinking that what we are offering them is exactly what they want and need and that they should need, nor desire, no more then that"
(and that goes of course not just for Canon, but for ANY company in ANY business setting; it's just how anybody behaves)

They said something similar about the EOS-M system and I parsed it like you did.

 

[Snapster]

Canon probably have their lawyers stationed outside Viltrox offices making sure the 16mm f/1.8 never gets out with an RF label. Funnily, just knowing it might someday be available for RF is already putting a stop to my urges of getting ultrawide Canon L glass (as if we had any primes anyway).

The RF 85mm f/1.2L at 3k and 1.2kg is so over the top they might as well let the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN in. The entry level RF 85 would still have a niche as a sharp less expensive semi-macro portrait lens. People who make money with 85mm will still buy the 1.2L. Same with the RF 50mm's - Sigma would sit very nicely in between for those who don't want either of Canon's offerings.

And the fictitious RF 35mm L... just give it to Sigma already so we can go shoot.